League of Legends Wiki:Request for Bureaucrat/Technology Wizard 2
I have decided to pursue bureaucrat rights here on the wiki. I feel as if I have greatly impacted the wiki by promoting new ideas and starting many projects. I always help out an editor in need whether it's user page help or teaching them editing skills. I have dedicated much time to the wiki and have improved it to my full extent. Many users have come to me for guidance and I always direct them to the right path. I think that becoming a bureaucrat on the wiki will allow me to help out the current active bureaucrats when it comes to closing requests or keeping track of inactive users. I am very honest and trustworthy as well. I would like to know if the community agrees that I can be the promising bureaucrat that I pursue to be. Support # I trust him. He's helped me out, and he's shown he can help dozens of others even more than he does now. Also, hey guys, I'm back :3 21:53, January 26, 2012 (UTC) # Tech is a very active Admin on the wiki, and a overall nice guy. I've seen him help people alot too, thus I'd say he'd make a good choice for a crat. -- I Am Knowledge イレリア ♥ アカリ 05:53, January 27, 2012 (UTC) # I Support Tech, he's active every day and he does alot of things around here and comes up with alot of ideas to encourage people to help around here. :) Dah' Blob 07:00, January 27, 2012 (UTC) # He's fairly active, truthful and seems like a good guy. He's helpful and I really don't see a reason not to allow him more power to help out Anon8792 22:16, January 27, 2012 (UTC) # # Bakedcookies 00:19, January 28, 2012 (UTC) # Tech is probably one of the single-most active members of the wiki and it's community, and one of the most devoted members we have. I think the position of bureaucrat is a natural place for him at the moment, and I fully support him in this endeavor. Constantly Confuddled Sth 00:52, January 28, 2012 (UTC) # I share most of the concerns about there being too many bureaucrats on this wiki, but in my eyes, tech has been here for a long time, and has shown maturity over his past mistakes, as well as playing a great part in keeping the important parts of the wiki constantly updated. I'd say let him have it, as an honorary badge for his efforts. He's earned this much, and i want to see how he handles himself faced with new responsibility. Rapacious 01:10, January 28, 2012 (UTC) # i feel although that Tech has been involved in a lot of drama that it has been way in the past, i feel as though he has matured greatly. From my point of view he has done nothing but better the site for the wiki community and is always helpfull to new editors. I fully support this nomination. 02:42, January 28, 2012 (UTC) # I've only been an actual member of the wiki for 2 weeks but I can say that Tech is both active and friendly to newcommers like I. He seems like a person that would greatly represent the wiki. DæmonicTrilogy 04:11, January 28, 2012 (UTC) # He's very helpful around the wiki, so i'm sure he's worth the nomination.Ice Nymph 07:40, January 28, 2012 (UTC)Ice Nymph # He dedicates himself to this Wiki and it's apparent. He's always active and contributes a lot. The community really appreciates his contributions. 17:53, January 28, 2012 (UTC) # He's a very nice guy and is doing a great job to the wiki. The community is glad to have his help. FrozenDarkness 14:13 January 28, 2012 (EST) # I think that Tech is ambitious, more mature and has positive intentions when it comes to work ethic and he is also active. We do have 4 other 'Crats, but (Please tell me if I am wrong) Neon is the only one who is active, while Kaz, Sam and Ajr seem less active now. I think that by having another active 'Crat, it would be beneficial to the wiki. Zaroph 22:18, January 28, 2012 (UTC) # First and foremost, the reason why I'm supporting Tech for this right is because he deserves it. He cares about the Wiki, and he always volunteers to help the community whenever possible. Plus, Tech could be considered active, and what this wiki needs isn't a sufficient amount of Crats; in fact, this Wiki could have so many Crats, it would be better if all of the Crats are active and responsible. In my opinion, Tech fits the bill. Another addition of a useful and active Crat won't hurt, of course. Also, From what I understand, he had previous qualms with someone from the Wiki before; what I'm trying to say is, he must be judged based in his current contributions, not his past problems. He definitely has my vote, and only because he deserves it and none other. RainbowEuphoria 22:59, January 28, 2012 (UTC) # He does edit, he is helpful, and I don't see what big mess he could cause as a bur that he couldn't cause as an admin. 05:51, January 29, 2012 (UTC) : He does help out a lot on the wiki. so i guess he can use the rights. Bloodstrider 16:05, January 26, 2012 (UTC)Bloodstrider. Neutral # Tech's a good guy, but four bureaucrats is already plenty for the wiki (even though they're not that active). There's no real purpose to go from admin to BC, right-wise. That is all. 23:16, January 26, 2012 (UTC) # Contribution is enough. My concern would be of something else, which I prefer to keep it down. [[User:Lesanthosxia|'Leia - 零亜のレサンテョスイア']] [[User talk:Lesanthosxia|'™']] 13:26, January 29, 2012 (UTC) # From what I understand, BCs need to be firm in their decisions when it comes to user right promotions and demotions. Haven't seen enough decisiveness from Tech when it comes to meting out punishments involving rights holders. LionsLight 04:12, January 28, 2012 (UTC) # It's like Teh said. We have enough Bureaucrats already,so another one isn't needed. Bloodstrider 09:39, January 28, 2012 (UTC)Bloodstrider : ^ 23:26, January 26, 2012 (UTC) Oppose #'Oppose', not really sure if I'm comfortable with this, or if its needed. 16:40, January 27, 2012 (UTC) # I feel as though Teh summarized a lot of what I feel. Even just one active 'crat is enough for this wiki, to be honest. The tools that 'crat offers, in my opinion, would be of no real benefit for you. Off the top of my head one of the biggest things is nominations, which I will admit I've been drifting away from (mainly due to Aj being around), but if the need for a 'crat's presence in them is high I will have no difficulty being more hands on regarding regulating and closing them. The other "big" thing is deleterevision, which does not see all that much use on this wiki (although I feel some of our female champions+Taric could use it due to the type of vandalism that occurs on those pages). 20:33, January 27, 2012 (UTC) # Oppose I am opposed to promoting anyone to a position that does not need to be filled. There isn't a vacancy, there is no need to fill it whether a person deserves it or not. You don't promote someone to VP just because they deserve it, you need to have a VP position available to promote them to. Asperon Thorn 07:58, January 28, 2012 (UTC) # You can stop asking me to support you. I'm not your friend, and won't back you in everything you do. Besides, like mentioned many times before, I don't see how you could need anything that you don't already have. There is no real need for a new crat. Kitty (^_~) 06:41, January 29, 2012 (UTC) Comments *To expand on my oppose, my main issues come with his "rivalry" with some of the other admins (one of which left primarily due to his treatment). That kind of interaction between users isn't really what I want in a bureaucrat, who should be able to put his or her feelings aside to close RfAs, etc. 00:03, January 28, 2012 (UTC) ** I wouldn't decide whether to give someone rights or not just because I may not particularly agree with them. I would just be there to close them or leave them open for the appropriate times. After analyzing how some of the RfPs have been left open or closed, I'd say I would be able to do the same without being biased in any way. *Just saying, most of the people on the support list barely contribute. 00:29, January 28, 2012 (UTC) **Depends on your definition of contribute. I don't edit since I'm paranoid and feel I would accidently mess things up or edit things that don't need editing while I have(rarely, but still) contributed idea's and the occasional number crunch as I'm sure some others have(I remember figuring out the "max duration" numbers for Shyvana's ult and doing some simple tests to see the effects of her ult'd Q mixing with Tiamats, but I wasn't the person to edit those on the wiki) Anon8792 01:00, January 28, 2012 (UTC) ***His point is that many of the people voting here aren't really active on the wiki. How did you find out about this request? 01:07, January 28, 2012 (UTC) ****I posted the link in chat. I don't see any harm. *****Posting a link like that is canvassing. Do those people, who aren't active on the actual wiki part of this site even know the technical difference between a bureaucrat and an admin? Undiscriminating advertising to people via a link on the community corner is one thing, but actively advertising your request to a group of people who really aren't affected by it is another. How many times did you post the link? 01:12, January 28, 2012 (UTC) ******I posted the link to whoever asked for it. I don't exactly have the number. I told a few users about the nomination, in which the link you provided says that it is ok. *******I understand the difference between Bure and Admin, the major difference being the Bure's get to choose people for positions such as this. I've helped around Wiki's before so I understand most of these things and probably would have found this on my own without his link. I'm just not big on editing since I feel I'll just mess things up somehow. Anon8792 01:27, January 28, 2012 (UTC) ***Not trying to be personal about this, but EpicNoob, IAK, Anon8792, and Bakedcookies are mostly on the wiki for chat - they have <50 mainspace edits between them. Though they may have good intentions, their contributions are minimal. 03:10, January 28, 2012 (UTC) ****On top of those specific members, the majority of the support votes come from people with an extremely scant amount of mainspace edits, or really anything that isn't a comment. 03:18, January 29, 2012 (UTC) *Regarding RainbowEuphoria's "he must be judged based in his current contributions, not his past problems" bit, I just want to say that when this negative behavior has been a reoccurring thing in Tech's history it's pretty hard to ignore it. 03:09, January 29, 2012 (UTC) **I don't recall any recent negative or poisonous behavior on my part, therefore, I don't see how it's repetitive. *** Data are forever 04:08, January 29, 2012 (UTC) ****I said "recent" and that forum hasn't been edited in 146 days. *7toony's point, I feel, is taken care of by my opposition vote (and a couple other neutral/oppose votes), yes he has dedication, yes he contributes a lot, but I do not feel as though these extra rights would benefit his contributions. 03:18, January 29, 2012 (UTC) *:Correct. Bureaucrat rights do not "benefit" anyone, because the rights are no more than sysop except for one, rarely-used area of the wiki. 03:28, January 29, 2012 (UTC) *::I agree that bureaucrats don't differ too much from sysop, but where was this brought up during other bureaucrat nominations? Also, we should limit the amount of user rights being granted to users just because we have "too many", in my opinion. *:::It wasn't brought up in mine because we didn't have any active 'crats at the time, this time around we have 2. 18:00, January 29, 2012 (UTC) *@Rapacious, rights are not given out as honorary badges, especially at the level he is aiming for. His contributions have gotten him his current position, which is, imo, all he needs for what he does. 03:18, January 29, 2012 (UTC) Closing Statement * Category:Active rights requests